Irviding

I'd just like to ask anyone well informed in military matter what the striked on Syria will likely look like.I understand that it is going to likely involve cruise missiles and air raids, but what are the likely effects on the various Assad Forces?

I've been reading somewhat differing predictions from various news sites - ranging from totally crippling Syria's Air Force and Chemical Weapons Programme, to merely being a symbolic warning to Assad not to use Chemical weapons again.

Also, how much would this intervention tip the baalnce towards the Oppostion Forces?

Thanks.

It's probably going to be strikes on Syrian command and control. So perhaps the Syrian interior ministry headquarters, defense ministry, etc. as well as whatever locations intelligence has concluded they are producing/storing these chemical weapons.

I'd just like to ask anyone well informed in military matter what the striked on Syria will likely look like.I understand that it is going to likely involve cruise missiles and air raids, but what are the likely effects on the various Assad Forces?

I've been reading somewhat differing predictions from various news sites - ranging from totally crippling Syria's Air Force and Chemical Weapons Programme, to merely being a symbolic warning to Assad not to use Chemical weapons again.

Also, how much would this intervention tip the baalnce towards the Oppostion Forces?

Thanks.

as well as whatever locations intelligence has concluded they are producing/storing these chemical weapons.

You can't simply go around and bomb sites where allegedly chemical weapon are stored/manufactured. Not unless you want to kill everyone in an x mile radius and an environmental catastrophe, that is. It would be a typical case of operation successful, patient deceased, if the US decided to do that.

The Pizza Delivery Guy

The U.S. clearly doesn't want to protect the people in Syria from anything. If they did, this would be kept quiet, and some well equipped, experienced footmen would already be in Syria. They are using a 9-11-esque attack story to fuel the country to get behind the attacks. Unfortunately the higher-ups have made a mistake in measuring the intelligence of Americans. We may be stupid, but we're not that stupid. Most of us saw right through the President's statements and do NOT want to attack Syria.

But the House keeps voting as if we are really fueled by anger right now, which we're obviously not (Check out those comments on the Huff Post).

Basically all they are doing now (acting like we want war and all the higher ups voting in favor) is proving that not only is the government lying to us, but also suggesting that they've lied in the past.

Eyes are opening, but the Gov. don't give a sh*t. Missiles will be headed to Syria before Saturday. Mark your calendars, and here's to WWIII.

Saturday's just my prediction. Perhaps there will be a hiccup and they won't fly until Monday.

Showstopper 26

The U.S. clearly doesn't want to protect the people in Syria from anything. If they did, this would be kept quiet, and some well equipped, experienced footmen would already be in Syria. They are using a 9-11-esque attack story to fuel the country to get behind the attacks. Unfortunately the higher-ups have made a mistake in measuring the intelligence of Americans. We may be stupid, but we're not that stupid. Most of us saw right through the President's statements and do NOT want to attack Syria.

But the House keeps voting as if we are really fueled by anger right now, which we're obviously not (Check out those comments on the Huff Post).

Basically all they are doing now (acting like we want war and all the higher ups voting in favor) is proving that not only is the government lying to us, but also suggesting that they've lied in the past.

Eyes are opening, but the Gov. don't give a sh*t. Missiles will be headed to Syria before Saturday. Mark your calendars, and here's to WWIII.

Saturday's just my prediction. Perhaps there will be a hiccup and they won't fly until Monday.

That early? They said the Senate won't vote until next week and then it goes to Congress.

The U.S. clearly doesn't want to protect the people in Syria from anything. If they did, this would be kept quiet, and some well equipped, experienced footmen would already be in Syria. They are using a 9-11-esque attack story to fuel the country to get behind the attacks. Unfortunately the higher-ups have made a mistake in measuring the intelligence of Americans. We may be stupid, but we're not that stupid. Most of us saw right through the President's statements and do NOT want to attack Syria.

But the House keeps voting as if we are really fueled by anger right now, which we're obviously not (Check out those comments on the Huff Post).

Basically all they are doing now (acting like we want war and all the higher ups voting in favor) is proving that not only is the government lying to us, but also suggesting that they've lied in the past.

Eyes are opening, but the Gov. don't give a sh*t. Missiles will be headed to Syria before Saturday. Mark your calendars, and here's to WWIII.

Saturday's just my prediction. Perhaps there will be a hiccup and they won't fly until Monday.

That early? They said the Senate won't vote until next week and then it goes to Congress.

speaker supports it, IMO predicting a pretty solid vote in favor of the strikes with something in the 70s in the Senate and high 200s in the house... will be a coalition of very liberal democrats and very libertarian republicans voting against it, and there ain't a lot of either.

I'd just like to ask anyone well informed in military matter what the striked on Syria will likely look like.I understand that it is going to likely involve cruise missiles and air raids, but what are the likely effects on the various Assad Forces?

I've been reading somewhat differing predictions from various news sites - ranging from totally crippling Syria's Air Force and Chemical Weapons Programme, to merely being a symbolic warning to Assad not to use Chemical weapons again.

Also, how much would this intervention tip the baalnce towards the Oppostion Forces?

Thanks.

It's probably going to be strikes on Syrian command and control. So perhaps the Syrian interior ministry headquarters, defense ministry, etc. as well as whatever locations intelligence has concluded they are producing/storing these chemical weapons.

This, plus a degree of their defensive capability to enable use of some munitions.

Primary targets are likely to be-•Command and control facilities•Radar arrays•Aircraft hangers and storage facilities•Military runways•SAM radar and control systems•Transporter-Errector-Launchers for TLBMs and IRBMs•Military research institutes

Irviding

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 03:53)
QUOTE (D- Ice @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 22:35)
I'd just like to ask anyone well informed in military matter what the striked on Syria will likely look like.
I understand that it is going to likely involve cruise missiles and air raids, but what are the likely effects on the various Assad Forces?

I've been reading somewhat differing predictions from various news sites - ranging from totally crippling Syria's Air Force and Chemical Weapons Programme, to merely being a symbolic warning to Assad not to use Chemical weapons again.

Also, how much would this intervention tip the baalnce towards the Oppostion Forces?

Thanks.
It's probably going to be strikes on Syrian command and control. So perhaps the Syrian interior ministry headquarters, defense ministry, etc. as well as whatever locations intelligence has concluded they are producing/storing these chemical weapons.
This, plus a degree of their defensive capability to enable use of some munitions.

Primary targets are likely to be-
•Command and control facilities
•Radar arrays
•Aircraft hangers and storage facilities
•Military runways
•SAM radar and control systems
•Transporter-Errector-Launchers for TLBMs and IRBMs
•Military research institutes

I'm not entirely convinced there will be that many strikes on conventional warfare equipment like aircraft hangers etc. The way I see it is, decimating their ability to wage conventional war only furthers their need to employ chemical warfare.

I'm not sure how the US intends to cripple Syria's chemical weapon abilities without an on-the-ground presence. Because bombing these alleged manufacture plants and storage sites is simply out of the question, or they want a disaster that's potentially far worse than the Ghouta attacks on their hands, that is. The only way to dispose of chemical weapons safely, is by seizing them and transporting them to a specialised plant to be incinerated.

Eutyphro

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31) So according to your logic states have no legal responsibility and are free to use force whenever they please. I find this an incredibly foolish and immoral standpoint for obvious reasons.

Not really. A democratic nation with an accountable political authority at it's helm can only operate within the realms of what politically active citizens will permit on the international stage. Security is zero-sum and economic and strategic relationships are multilateral, which means that nations have to work in harmony in order to achieve mutual benefit in terms of security. Aggression begets aggression, which in a multi-polar world results in greater instability and an accentuation of the potential harms to the benefit of external competitors. The offence-defence balance generally favours the defender- especially in an international community which by principle tends to shun violence- which means that the strategic risks in terms of harm to an aggressor are significantly greater, all else being equal.

As for the question of legal responsibility, that's why international organisations exist. However their existence does not necessarily mean that they're equipped with the teeth to properly act when a great or global power oversteps their reach and involves themselves in actions which lead to greater peripheral instability. You'd probably find it considerably less so if you hadn't misrepresented pretty much everything I'd said. It's also worth pointing out that at no point have I indicated that I find a system where the relative freedom of use of force is moral or otherwise- merely that it exists. It clearly does, because if it did not nations would not act aggressively, frequently counter to their long-term strategic interests, against each other.

The first part of your argument could have been true, were it not for the fact that our world is not that multi polar at all. The United States is the number one world power by far, which is why they get away with such immensely aggressive foreign policy. And you've really made a very good effort towards understanding the problem of the United States being the top world power when you stated: "A democratic nation with an accountable political authority at it's helm can only operate within the realms of what politically active citizens will permit on the international stage". You've really gotten hold of the problem there, because the united states is the number one world power, and is also a business led tyranny which has a fundamental lack of politically active citizens. I think that it's great that we have international law that is able to hold states responsible for their improper aggression. If the number one world power would start respecting it it would be a step towards a safer and more peaceful world.

And I did not misrepresent anything. By condoning the United States being an outlaw state and invading Syria without respect for international law you judged it as being moral.

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31) You also state something is only illegal if it is prosecuted. That's like saying me murdering someone was only illegal if I get caught.

Which is a fair enough point if we were discussing an entity which governed on black and white rules without nuance or interpretation, like a judicial system does, but that simply isn't the case with the international community. It's far closer to something like a constitutional court, where absolutes are few and interpretation and relativity govern.

I'll post it again: "The UN Charter states that "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42," which detail the preferred "measures not involving the use of armed force" and permit the Security Council to take further action if it finds such measures inadequate. The only exception is Article 51, which permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Apart from these exceptions, member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

There's nothing vague about this.

I've never stated that things are not illegal if they are not prosecuted, either. Again, you seem to have misconstrued my argument either accidental or intentionally to try and misrepresent it, and have chosen to argue against a point I'm not making as if I had. It is a statement of categorical fact that nations are not deemed by the international community to have committed illegal acts unless a consensus exists that they have. If that consensus does not exist as far as international law is concerned, no breach has taken place.

I have a challenge for anyone reading this. Read the first sentence of this alinea and then find the contradiction with the rest of the alinea. So what is illegal is based on the consensus of the 'international community' (code for the United States and it's allies)? I'll keep my definition of illegal as 'against the law' in stead of 'condemned by the United States and it's allies'.

And even in the event of an ICJ judgement against a nation for a particular action, there's no compulsion for action on behalf of the Security Council. If there was then we- and by we I mean the international community- would have been obliged to intervene military in Syria already.

Where did I ever imply such a thing? This is just irrelevant.

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31) By that definition the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were also genocides.Uh, no they aren't. Article 2 of the UN-CPPCG states

QUOTE (UN-CPPCG; Article 2) ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I see no evidence of an organised plot conducted by a state or non-state actor to systematically destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. That's primarily because no such plot exists, with the possible exception of the actions of violent Sunni non-state groups who seem to be waging a campaign that's certainly bordering on genocide against the Shia population in Iraq. Could you please quantify, preferably with reference to reputable external sources, exactly what about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan you interpret as a systematic attempt to destroy a national or transnational subgroup based on societal, cultural or religious identity?

Well, how I see it, one army kills thousands of people in a war from one ethnic group, does not openly admit it was ethnic cleansing. Genocide. Other group, (US army), does the same thing. Not genocide. The problem with intensions is that they are hidden.. And considering intensions are hidden in both cases, and considering both have death counts that pale with common examples of genocide, I find it inappropriate to name them as such.

QUOTE (gtaxpert @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 17:31) Colonializing a part of the world by creating borders, a state and a division of power is a very strange way of maintaining a status quo.

You do know what "Tutsi" and "Hutu" mean don't you? They're not just simple distinctions between those with wealth (the former) and those without (the latter); anthropologically and genetically they're different too. Tutsis migrated into Rwanda from Burundi and effectively subjugated the Hutu people under a series of Tutsi kings until, and throughout, the colonial period.

Rich Hutu's could become Tutsi's and poor Tutsi's could become Hutu's. The Belgians made the distinction static by introducing identity cards like this one http://www.trumanweb...ina/tutsiID.jpg Making the differences between these two groups static was a major cause of the genocide.

The first part of your argument could have been true, were it not for the fact that our world is not that multi polar at all. The United States is the number one world power by far, which is why they get away with such immensely aggressive foreign policy.

The US is the number one world power in terms of economic and military might, sure, but does that mean that the world is not multi-polar? No it doesn't. There are numerous nations that have been exploiting their strategic power overseas for either mutual or solo gains, including but not limited to China, Russia, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Iran, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, both Koreas, South Africa, Ethiopia, Uganda, Brazil and Turkey. The US is certainly the dominant power in the strategic landscape, but it is neither powerful not interventionist enough to dominate it. I mean, various institutions such as the EU's Institute for Security Studies base their publications on the presumption of a multipolar world, and the fact I've not seen or read anything recently that suggests there's still an an existing widely-held belief amongst strategic theorists that the geostrategic landscape is dominated solely by the US as a single great power.

You've really gotten hold of the problem there, because the united states is the number one world power, and is also a business led tyranny which has a fundamental lack of politically active citizens. I think that it's great that we have international law that is able to hold states responsible for their improper aggression. If the number one world power would start respecting it it would be a step towards a safer and more peaceful world.

Let's take a step back here. Do I agree that the United States is the number one world power? Yes. Does that mean that they have an ability to further their interests through force without a reliance on consensus amongst the international community? Yes, but they aren't the only nation who have the power to do this. Since the end of the Cold War we've seen questionable military escalation without punitive recompense from Russia in Georgia and the North Caucus, including numerous claims of war crimes committed by Russian forces. We've seen China militarise their completely untenable and illogical stand on the Spratley Islands; we've seen the Iranian state using foreign militant groups as a de-facto army during various crises in the Middle East and Gulf; we've seen Ethiopia in particular over-extend in Somalia, moving from peacekeeping to direct influence through military power; we've seen numerous instances of illegal operations being conducted against sovereign foreign nations such as the Ugandan military incursions into the DRC; both Peru and Ecuador in the Cenepa War, et cetera et cetera. I agree wholeheartedly with the lack of political participation in the United States and the questions that arise in terms of accountability for actions from that, but the same could be effectively said of a huge number of nations and it isn't entirely true to imply that the US systematically engages in conflicts for which there is limited public support. Participates in, yes; engages in, no. The incursion into Syria, should it come, is likely to be rather exceptional in this context. I'd also argue that the US has become less strategically involved since the end of the Cold War and actually de-escalated to a great extent, but that's by the by.

And I did not misrepresent anything. By condoning the United States being an outlaw state and invading Syria without respect for international law you judged it as being moral

Actually if you read back you'll realise I never condoned the actions of the US or directly inferred support for the support of military operations without a UN consensus. I merely explained the methods through which the US can and does use this power, and highlighted that they're far from the only power who acts in such a way.

I'll post it again...There's nothing vague about this.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point I'm making. The very existence of caveats for national defence is precisely the method through which the ambiguity arises. Nowhere is there a "hard and fast" set of rules for what constitutes self-defence in the international community. In fact, the case law on the issue is extraordinarily contradictory. At different times and under different circumstances, military actions defend friendly but non-allied states, pre-emptive military strikes, mutual defence involving disparate powers, defence of foreign strategic interests, unilateral military action with no clear self-defence rationale and a whole host of other circumstances have been found both legal and illegal. So my point still stands- there is effectively no rulebook as to what constitutes a legitimate self-defence argument, therefore it is solely up to the subjective whims of the ICJ to determine whether such an argument is valid.

So what is illegal is based on the consensus of the 'international community' (code for the United States and it's allies)? I'll keep my definition of illegal as 'against the law' in stead of 'condemned by the United States and it's allies'.

Yes. It's a statement of fact that the actions of states can only be categorised as illegal on the basis of international consent. You're welcome to continue using your own definition for it, but it doesn't really bring anything to the table or contribute to your argument in any way; it is the equivalent of claiming that certain actions violate certain amendment of the US Constitution- you can claim they do all they want, but as an individual who lacks the authority to make the judgement (the legislature applicable in either case being the authority), it's merely an opinion.

Well, how I see it, one army kills thousands of people in a war from one ethnic group, does not openly admit it was ethnic cleansing. Genocide. Other group, (US army), does the same thing. Not genocide. The problem with intensions is that they are hidden.. And considering intensions are hidden in both cases, and considering both have death counts that pale with common examples of genocide, I find it inappropriate to name them as such.

I don't think there's a great deal of logic in trying to redefine the meaning of words so they suit your argument. How you see it is largely immaterial; without evidence to say that there was an organised plot inside the military coalitions to systematically destroy any racial, national or religious group in Iraq or Afghanistan, your claim is completely meaningless. It's also ignorant to the point of offence in regard to the conflict in Bosnia, so much so that I have great difficulty in taking the rest of the comment seriously. Also, there's nothing to say an act of genocide necessarily has to have a particularly large body count. There were acts of genocide committed by both sides during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22 such as the burning of Smyrna which had casualty figures in the hundreds or thousands.

Rich Hutu's could become Tutsi's and poor Tutsi's could become Hutu's...Making the differences between these two groups static was a major cause of the genocide.

The difference already existed. The Bantu- from which the societal elites (Tutsis) were almost entirely formed before and during the Colonial period, and from which the monarchical system was derived- were effectively foreign invaders, and tensions between Tutsi and Hutu had formed well before the Colonial period in the 1880s- under the reign of the Mwambi, the Tutsis controlled the entire power base.

Eutyphro

The US is the number one world power in terms of economic and military might, sure, but does that mean that the world is not multi-polar? No it doesn't. There are numerous nations that have been exploiting their strategic power overseas for either mutual or solo gains, including but not limited to China, Russia, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Iran, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, both Koreas, South Africa, Ethiopia, Uganda, Brazil and Turkey. The US is certainly the dominant power in the strategic landscape, but it is neither powerful not interventionist enough to dominate it. I mean, various institutions such as the EU's Institute for Security Studies base their publications on the presumption of a multipolar world, and the fact I've not seen or read anything recently that suggests there's still an an existing widely-held belief amongst strategic theorists that the geostrategic landscape is dominated solely by the US as a single great power.

But then again all EU members are more or less US allies, so a EU study on the division of power in the world has a quite clear agenda. And sadly enough most strategic theorists have an agenda too. Schools are "institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young". This is not a conspiracy theory. This is exactly how it was put by the Trilateral Commission http://en.wikipedia....eral_Commission. And you especially see this in the humanities, because that is where thinking freely is most dangerous to power. Intellectuals are selected on their ability to support state power. So yes, I agree that your opinion is probably more in line with what most strategic theorists proclaim. That doesn't mean that it is in any way objective and free of any agenda though.

You've really gotten hold of the problem there, because the united states is the number one world power, and is also a business led tyranny which has a fundamental lack of politically active citizens. I think that it's great that we have international law that is able to hold states responsible for their improper aggression. If the number one world power would start respecting it it would be a step towards a safer and more peaceful world.

Let's take a step back here. Do I agree that the United States is the number one world power? Yes. Does that mean that they have an ability to further their interests through force without a reliance on consensus amongst the international community? Yes, but they aren't the only nation who have the power to do this. Since the end of the Cold War we've seen questionable military escalation without punitive recompense from Russia in Georgia and the North Caucus, including numerous claims of war crimes committed by Russian forces. We've seen China militarise their completely untenable and illogical stand on the Spratley Islands; we've seen the Iranian state using foreign militant groups as a de-facto army during various crises in the Middle East and Gulf; we've seen Ethiopia in particular over-extend in Somalia, moving from peacekeeping to direct influence through military power; we've seen numerous instances of illegal operations being conducted against sovereign foreign nations such as the Ugandan military incursions into the DRC; both Peru and Ecuador in the Cenepa War, et cetera et cetera.

I agree wholeheartedly with the lack of political participation in the United States and the questions that arise in terms of accountability for actions from that, but the same could be effectively said of a huge number of nations and it isn't entirely true to imply that the US systematically engages in conflicts for which there is limited public support. Participates in, yes; engages in, no. The incursion into Syria, should it come, is likely to be rather exceptional in this context. I'd also argue that the US has become less strategically involved since the end of the Cold War and actually de-escalated to a great extent, but that's by the by.

I totally agree with the first alinea. And it's good that you've started to imagine a sort of list in your head of times when other countries have used illegal force. Let's consider the period from the 80's up until today. Now I ask you to compare the illegal instances of force of all other countries in the world combined to not only the times when the United States have used illegitemate force themselves, which has countless examples in the Middle East in the chosen time period, but also the largely unreported instances where they supported terror. A good example for their long lasting terror throughout South America is their support of the Contra's in Nicaragua which resulted in the United States being condemned for international terrorism by the International Court of Justice. After that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kikpatrick dismissed the Court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't".The fact that the United States along with Israel are the only two nations that openly dismiss the International Court of Justice further illustrates my point of them being the 1# world power. Another important instance of US terror was their support for Suharto who was responsible for 200.000 deaths in East Timor.

I also like to point out that considering the fact that I live in a country that is an allie to the United States, US crimes are more relevant than others to me. I think it's far more relevant to be critical of our own crimes compared to those committed by others.

And I did not misrepresent anything. By condoning the United States being an outlaw state and invading Syria without respect for international law you judged it as being moral

Actually if you read back you'll realise I never condoned the actions of the US or directly inferred support for the support of military operations without a UN consensus. I merely explained the methods through which the US can and does use this power, and highlighted that they're far from the only power who acts in such a way.

It's an instance of 1+1=2. You stated you were not opposed to unilateral action, and you stated that an invasion of Syria would be beneficial. These two statements combined makes you a supporter of a unilateral US invasion of Syria, even if it wasn't put that way explicitly.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point I'm making. The very existence of caveats for national defence is precisely the method through which the ambiguity arises. Nowhere is there a "hard and fast" set of rules for what constitutes self-defence in the international community. In fact, the case law on the issue is extraordinarily contradictory. At different times and under different circumstances, military actions defend friendly but non-allied states, pre-emptive military strikes, mutual defence involving disparate powers, defence of foreign strategic interests, unilateral military action with no clear self-defence rationale and a whole host of other circumstances have been found both legal and illegal. So my point still stands- there is effectively no rulebook as to what constitutes a legitimate self-defence argument, therefore it is solely up to the subjective whims of the ICJ to determine whether such an argument is valid.

Laws in general are multi interpretabel. But you act as if they have no meaning whatsoever, which is false. I challenge you to make a case for the invasion of Syria by the United States as an instance of self defence to prove your point about these laws having no meaning.

So what is illegal is based on the consensus of the 'international community' (code for the United States and it's allies)? I'll keep my definition of illegal as 'against the law' in stead of 'condemned by the United States and it's allies'.

Yes. It's a statement of fact that the actions of states can only be categorised as illegal on the basis of international consent. You're welcome to continue using your own definition for it, but it doesn't really bring anything to the table or contribute to your argument in any way; it is the equivalent of claiming that certain actions violate certain amendment of the US Constitution- you can claim they do all they want, but as an individual who lacks the authority to make the judgement (the legislature applicable in either case being the authority), it's merely an opinion.

I refuse to accept a group of countries (the United States and it's allies) led by a country convicted for international terrorism in 1984 that has no respect for international law whatsoever (the United States) as the authority of what is legal in the international arena. I'll stick to a combination of my definition of 'illegal' as 'against the law' and international law.

I dropped the Rwanda and the genocide discussion. Continuing the Rwanda discussion would have led to me repeating things, and the genocide discussion is largely semantic. We disagree how large a number of murders is implied by genocide, but it's a purely semantic discussion and thus hardly relevant.

Stephan90

Whenever Obama wants. Apparently he can strike without congress approval.

5 6 out of 50 senators want to strike. Seems no one but the big boys want to do it.

Who are the big boys? Doesn't the House still have to vote even after the Senate?

The big boys are basically the most well-known politicians. Like Obama, Kerry, McCain (He wants a ground fight so he still counts).

I'm surprised that there are more Democrats than Republicans that want to strike Syria. Usually it's the other way around.

I'm guessing if Obama didn't want to attack, most of the important politicians of the democrats were also against it. That's how democracy works in reality. No free opinion for the individual, or at least you have to face the consequences if you oppose the leading standpoint.

Jonny_Tightlips

Not sure if this was talked about, since i don't want to look through 18 pages, but one possible thing that comes to mind is this (I might sound theory-driven, just bear with me and take it with a grain of salt): What if President Obama, fully aware of the intense hold that industries such as the Military Industrial Complex have over special interests in American politics (and HAVE held for decades, thank you Eisenhower), has decided that, instead of taking it on directly and risking some form of similar resistance as seen in the past (though assassination is a worst-case scenario and probably unlikely in this day and age, also he definitely isn't a martyr), is openly working to accelerate the profit-based goals of these special interests in an attempt to show the American public how easy it could be for a despotic leader to surpass the constitution, as well as a money-driven Congress to completely ignore the views of their constituents in favor of SuperPAC funding.

I'm not holding on to a belief such as "Obama has a good heart, he just is being manipulated by the powers that be!" Because honestly the sh*t that has come to light this year is ridiculous. But at the same time, it does not make any sense to me how a Constitutional Law professor and civil rights attorney could completely reverse such a career in a matter of half a decade (But I am definitely open to hear how this could have been possible).

Just when I thought US government official's statements couldn't disgust me more - this tosser comes around, and takes it to a whole new level.

“Now do we have irrefutable, beyond reasonable doubt evidence? This is not a court of law, and intelligence does not work that way,” McDonough said, adding common sense says "he is responsible for this. He should be held accountable.”

How he has the audacity to make such statements is beyond me. When attacking a country that has not attacked the US, you're going to need more than mere conjecture, and youtube videos to base your military actions on.

Anything less than is that called a war of aggression, exactly like Iraq.

Otter

You're telling me, honestly, that you think they're solely operating on Youtube videos and conjecture? Remember, friend, this is a governement that knows the last 5 7/11s you've visited and how many times you've drunk-dialed your ex in the past 5 years.

You're telling me, honestly, that you think they're solely operating on Youtube videos and conjecture? Remember, friend, this is a governement that knows the last 5 7/11s you've visited and how many times you've drunk-dialed your ex in the past 5 years.

I'm saying that when it's in their interest, manufacturing / tampering with evidence is not something I would put past them.

Otter

You're telling me, honestly, that you think they're solely operating on Youtube videos and conjecture? Remember, friend, this is a governement that knows the last 5 7/11s you've visited and how many times you've drunk-dialed your ex in the past 5 years.

I'm saying that when it's in their interest, manufacturing / tampering with evidence is not something I would put past them.

But, look, that's not what you posted.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here - I would just hope that, for someone who's railing against duplictiy, you'd refrain from rhetoric. We have enough of that around here.

Look; I'm with you - I don't see any strategic benefit to any side in military strikes. But at the same time? Something has to be done. I'm all ears if you've got a better idea. A lot of the rebels are in bed with horrible people. But there are, what, four main groups? Who stands to gain anything from military strikes, aside from asserting that chemical weapons are off the f*cking table.